How many times has it been now that the Federal Appellate Courts strike down these ridiculous laws that various states formulate for the expressed purpose of limiting the rights of voters that they don't want to vote? 20? 30? 40? Whatever the number, the onerous laws are being struck down as soon as they reach appellate level jurisdictions. Over and over and over again the appellate courts find the newly framed laws governing voter ID to be unconstitutional.

In the case of voter ID what precedence is the judge ignoring, midge? These recent proposed changes that various states have to unnecessarily challenge prospective voters are ruled one after another as being unconstitutional. Why is that? It's because they're unconstitutional, that's why. Judge after judge has given the states the benefit of the doubt pending the state's production of records that voter fraud is prevalent in their states and they need to have additional measures beyond the constitution to remedy the integrity of their elections. The states don't produce anything because they have not experienced any voter fraud. It needs to be something requiring a constitutional change to somehow interfere with the abilities of Americans to simply vote. That is the job of the congress. Not the courts. I expect the propensities of the courts to rule against the states changing their voting requirements to continue. So far it's the courts 100 and the states ZERO.

The judge only had to review and quote the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to explain her ruling. Next step? SCOTUS? I doubt it. They've declined to hear all the other appellate decisions regarding these same circumstances. The SCOTUS has unofficially dressed a few of these judges and their decisions down and encouraged them to simply read the appropriate documents and previous case law on these issues. Putting speed bumps on the road to the voting booth when no one has been speeding is generally a foolish endeavor. But it's all been fun watching these rightwingnut activist judges trying to change the wording and the meaning of the Constitution and other applicable laws in these regards.

The judge only had to review and quote the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to explain her ruling. Next step? SCOTUS? I doubt it. They've declined to hear all the other appellate decisions regarding these same circumstances. The SCOTUS has unofficially dressed a few of these judges and their decisions down and encouraged them to simply read the appropriate documents and previous case law on these issues. Putting speed bumps on the road to the voting booth when no one has been speeding is generally a foolish endeavor. But it's all been fun watching these rightwingnut activist judges trying to change the wording and the meaning of the Constitution and other applicable laws in these regards.

And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

No she had to stretch the meaning of the voters rights act to make it apply to this case. It is a major grasping at straws to call voter ID a poll tax since Texas offer free ID for those who do not have one.

Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Incumbent
Assumed office
August 4, 2011
Appointed by
Barack Obama
Preceded by
Hayden Wilson Head, Jr.
Personal details
Born
1965 (age 51–52)
Port Lavaca, Texas
Education
Texas State University–San Marcos (B.A.)
University of Texas Law School (J.D.)

Jamie Jamie Jamie..... your so far behnd....

Oh, one more diddy.....

Democrats select three finalists for federal judgeship". Corpus Christi Caller-Times._________________Schmit Samiches for all the libs!!!

It's painfully apparent in each case where judges make decisions that the rightwingnuts don't agree with then the judge must be an "activist judge". Even if the judge offers up sound constitutional and case law as are found in this incident. They still think Roe v Wade was decided according to the activist leanings of a SCOTUS decision. The decision in Roe v Wade has been held up time after time and it's legal and constitutional soundness has been tested over and over. But even now this nation remains very divided on this issue and new lawsuits are being filed almost monthly. Even so, I don't expect Roe v Wade to be overturned anytime soon. Obviously we've had an activist SCOTUS for all of these decades, according to the rightwingnuts. I'm glad that I'm not in that bubble of ignorance with them. There is far more good and true information contained in case law than the average rightwingnut can begin to comprehend.

When it reaches the supreme court you libs will get your butt handed to you just as you did in the last election.. rejoice while you wallow in your liberal intellectually bankrupt opposition to voter ID.._________________boss petty